Time to Knock IEng on the Head

Hi Simon,

(Note: throughout this by "CEng level" and "IEng level" I mean meeting the applicable requirements of UKSpec.)


It depends what you mean by "sign off work". Let's take my field, railway safety systems, and a recent example I've been involved in, a new level crossing system for the UK. For the acceptance that the system is ultimately safe to place in service there are maybe three people involved in the sign off (of different aspects), all of whom are at CEng level. For the system design, application design, implementation, planning, supervision of testing (both of the design and the final application), and sign off against specific tasks (i.e. a factual sign off rather than a sign off based on judgement) there are a large number of engineers involved - why should they not be professionally recognised and registered just because they don't have that final sign-off responsibility? Which is the silly position we are in now (since hardly anyone bothers to take up IEng.) (Of course, many of these engineers will be at CEng level, which is fine.)


I personally think it is clear that IEng does apply to engineers who have sign-off responsibility - but where that responsibility is broadly against a known and agreed practice. CEng is (again as I personally understand it) is intended to provide evidence that the holder is competent to take a sign-off judgement in a critical environment where there are significant unknowns.


I disagree slightly with Brian's argument in the thread you link to, as I say I believe that UKSpec is reasonably clear that IEng and CEng can both have sign-off responsibility, but in different circumstances. But (I may be wrong) I don't get the impression that he was trying to draw a distinction between the two here, it was a different argument of (broadly) CEng against nothing at all.


If I had a complex solar panel installation developed for my house I'd be quite happy for that to be signed off by an IEng. When they start mining under my house for tungsten in a year or so I'd rather like a CEng or two to be involved to form that judgement as to whether they've considered all the obscure ways my house could be undermined, but if most of the mining engineers are IEng that's fine by me. And good for them.


Hope that makes it clearer.


Cheers,


Andy

"This shows people are proud to achieve IEng designation"


Unfortunately the sense of achievement normally fades once the realisation that its not recognised by most engineering employers becomes evident.

I recently achieved IEng registration and I was fairly pleased to attain IEng designatory letters. For me, IEng signified a milestone in my career and recognition for my experience and previous project involvement. It also gave me an opportunity to identify my competences and collate all of my previous project involvement into a portfolio. My perception of the IEng registration process was, in my opinion, an invaluable experience and it has to some extent prepared me for the CEng registration process. I would be dissapointed if IEng was to disappear as I'd always encourage, and I do, my colleagues and other engineers to go through the registration process.


However I am disheartened that the majority of employers either do not recognise or possibly not value IEng registered engineers. I have to agree with Peter Miller's statement "the sense of achievement normally fades once the realisation that its not recognised by most engineering employers becomes evident". The majority of engineering roles (certainly west of Scotland) normally stipulate CEng registration is desired and in some instances CEng registration essential. Whilst I don't have an issue with CEng engineers being desired / essential, of course they should be, it takes a lot of work, dedication and effort to get to that level and kudos to the engineers that attain this achievement, but surely IEng engineers should be desirable also? I haven't encountered any recruitment adverts that stipulate IEng or EngTech registration desirable. Do employers and recruiters fail to recognise the value of IEng / EngTech as they consider the effort required to achieve this level of registration as less onerous or portrayed as only a stepping stone towards CEng?


The issue may not be as systemic as I perceive it as I've only sampled the engineering recruitment adverts that are available within my local area but it's interesting to read about other engineers experiences. This entire topic / thread has been a pretty interesting read, it took me a while to get through (over a few lunch breaks at least!).

Well done Allan!


For what it's worth, as a PRA, I certainly do recognise and value your achievement and, as someone who has recruited quite a number of staff over the last few years, seeing IEng on your CV would bring it up my particular pile of applications.


A great milestone achieved.

Agree with Michael.

I wonder if EC UK or IET conduct employer surveys? And what type of feedback if such surveys are conducted is being provided?

What the employers expect or understand IEng is?

A fair point Michael, but fairly reflective of the quality of argument prevalent in these forums at the time and a steep decline in new IEng registrations through the noughties.


I'll post something more in depth later, but many senior IEng were far more offended by Engineering Council's later actions to downgrade them than by this. I came close to resigning over it myself. To suggest that experienced IEng, some of who had managed CEng were no longer suitable to evaluate such practice having been long proven in doing so, was both insulting and to some professionally damaging.  For example some IEng work as independent consultants (perhaps competing against a CEng) and the idea of a IEng senior manager (or military rank) was rendered untenable.

Who will convince and give awareness to the employer that IEngs are something besides the CEngs and they should also be hired on their defined posts?

Not so much a society, but separate boards within the governance structure: CEng, IEng, EngTech-ICTTech, Members and Fellows. Each board working in the interest of their respective professional grade.


There should also be 3 elected vice president posts for CEng, IEng, and EngTech-ICTTech. That way all registered grades will have high profile representives promoting their interests within the community, education, and industry.


I nominate Roy Bowdler for Chairman of the IEng board and post of Vice President.

Board sounds better.

But it may be needed across all the EC UK licensed Institutes.

IET can set it self a part or lead?

IEng board will do what is in the best interest of IEng's.

CEng board for CEngs.

And Technicians board for the EngTech ICT Tech.